Roachmill

I doot dat @Ghostrider. I hae nae budder we folk sayin whit dey tink - you keen whaur you staand. But da mair folk dey say it tae, da mair chance dir is o somebody disagreein we dem.
Dirs pleny o wet folk aboot who will be offended by onything. And dirs plenty of folk who get offended by idder folk being offended by somethin offensive dey've said! "I demand to be able to say things I know will offend other people and I will, in turn, be offended if they take offence to my knowingly offensive comments"
I hiv some pretty traditional, old fashioned, or unfashionable views but I seem tae be able to express dem in wyes dat dunna offend idder folk. 

I'm not using 'age as an excuse', rather pointing out that with it age brings the benefit of having heard countless arguments over the years as to the ethical/moral/legal etc 'unacceptability' of a infinite number of behaviours and terminologies, which tends to give a more comprehensive  understanding of which may be genuine and valid and what may be weak or spurious.
Just because someone claims they're 'offended' doesn't necessarily prove they are, they could be lying for ulterior motives, or they could be genuine, but have very weak reason(s) for being so.
Claiming to be 'offended' does not give anybody the right to force change, only a robust argument with sound verifiable supporting evidence does. The establishment of validity and a justifiable, proportionate viable response is paramount to the legitimacy of the 'solution' and its success.
Every opinion has its fair share of extremists, the 'lunatic fringe', and unfortunately in the global culture of the present the 'lunatic fringe' of being 'offended' seems to have acquired far more power than it has any business having. Rightly or wrongly the impression given is that all you need these days is one voice shouting loudly enough about it, regardless how (un)justified or (ill)informed to launch a tidal wave that is hi-jacked and acted upon by people who should have more intelligence and sense of responsibility.
If any individual on an individual level wishes to heed all claims of 'offended' and modify their own lives accordingly, that is of course their prerogative to do so. Its when its forced upon others that that kind of thing becomes a problem, especially in today's apparently apathetic (self-centred?) attitude of the vast majority, of just going along with whoever shouts loudest for the sake of peace and to appear to 'care. 'nsofar as it creates an open season for those who have no scruples about abusing the 'offended' tag for their own ends, to create a tail wagging the dog situation where a tiny minority control the majority entirely through intentional manipulation, and the majority don't sense it until its too late and they've already committed themselves. Who's abusing who come that stage? As that's the stage we're at with a lot of it right now
While social reformation in the past has done a very great deal to address some dreadful abuses, and no doubt worldwide there's many, many more going on every day that desperately needing their attention, it comes across very much these days that they have largely been hi-jacked by, or so it appears, an ever increasing number of selfish people who just simply want their own way and will do or say anything to achieve that.
Any reasonable person, I would hope myself included, would respond positively to where any soundly based and reasoned case was put forward, but when you start getting to the stage, as some of us old duffers are now, of hearing the same minorities putting forth the same argument repeatedly over the decades, just inserting a new word they're offended by, it all gets to be a bit suss.
'Professional victim' is a thing.
The use of the 'n' word being 'offensive' is a classic example. Fine, it was pointed out that it was a corruption of a legitimate word so that it had derogatory connotations from the start which had just increased over time with usage. We got that, and stopped using it, it was a sound argument. It was made known that instead we should use 'black', again fine, despite misgivings on account of other usage of the same word elsewhere, we, out of politeness went along with that. A little time passed, then they took umbrage to 'black', they wanted 'African American', but some wanted 'people of colour' and they've been bickering amongst themselves ever since. Meanwhile the rise of their lunatic fringe sees random eruptions of destruction and vows to destroy everything that is not of their own kind. Yeah, well forgive me, but when on one hand an ethnic group cannot seem to have enough sense of self-identity to be able to know what to call themselves, and on the other hand are vowing to destroy everything not of their own kind while at the same time just destroying indiscriminately whatever kind's it is, I can't take very seriously, its attention slut behaviour as it stands.
Similarly and one I can speak of from both sides of the fence, is the number of different words that have been applied to 'disability' and certain specific 'disabilities' over the years as over time in use ones have been deemed 'offensive'. Anyone with a 'disability' was used to universally be known as a 'cripple'. That became un-PC and was outlawed. I actually prefer and use cripple as a self-description, primarily due to the slightly different meaning for cripple in Shetland being someone who cannot walk properly, and that 'disability' in my mind implies that which has been purposely and intentionally had batteries/components reoved, wires disconnected etc by another and is very impresonal and dehumanising.
I also self-describe as knackered, a crang, a corpse, the liiving dead, totally fxxked, zombie and any number of similar terms for my 'disability'. Yet I am repeatedly told by 'society' that I must not use such terms for 'disability' as they offend the 'disabled'. WTF!  I AM, according to society, 'disabled', but society, the vast majority of whom aren't 'disabled'  apparently gets to dictate to me how I self-describe. FXXK THAT!
To get to the point, the above two examples of constant changes in terminology attempting to address a perceived 'offend' in previously used terminology just suggests one thing, that it is not necessarily the terminology itself it 'offends', but the meaning that is established for the term, and consequently it won;t matter how many times names get changed, as long as the thing or act it describes exists negativity is going to be associated with it. Some things will always remain 'negative' in the eyes of the majority, no matter how prettily you try to dress it up, better to accept that and deal with it than keep on doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
There is also the added negativity of all this renaming everything, particularly for charaties, who rightly or wrongly usually lead the vanguard of future name changes. Is that in attempting to find increasingly benign and 'unoffensive. names for themselves, they've now reached the point that long gone are the days where a charity name made it crystal clear who they were trying to assist, and consequently people are finding it increasingly difficult to locate and identify charities they are seeking, either for assistance or to donate to.
'The Spastics Society' worked, 'Scope', not so much.
Apprarently Mongolism, Downs etc is no longer a thing with charaties, as such things are all lumped under a cryptically named umbrella organisation 'Enable'.
Some 'Disability' charities seem to already be feeling 'disability' is no longer an 'unoffends' term, choosing things like 'enable' instead, again diminishing quickly establishing their MO from their name.
 
 
 
 

On the other hand, it means I can browse the Shetlink forums without having to wade through pictures of people's genitals, which is nice.

What if the people who run the web site don't want it to be the sort of place where racial slurs or graphic sexual content appear? 

Apologies for going off topic again.....

Every social context has rules, whether explicit or assumed, about what is acceptable. A conversation in the Thule Bar will have different social rules to a conversation at the family dinner table. 
In this case of Shetlink, we are all responsible for setting the tone of the discussions - not just the moderators. I for one am grateful that the tone is generally constructive, respectful, and rarely personal.
But it seems to me that some folk on here are in a cob after being asked to mind their language at the family dinner table. 
Claims about censorship and comparisons to communist dictatorships are hysterical nonsense! Never in the history of humanity have people had so many opportunities and mechanisms to express their opinions. If you feel you are being censored here, there are many other places on the internet you can go.

Anyway... I'm not convinced there may be any long term need for such cards or whatever form they take. The optimist in me sees once the majority are vaccinated, the virus [mutant deadly vaccine immune strain permitting] will hopefully fall to such numbers that it all becomes a moot point. There is, however, a load of cash to be made dispensing cards; and that will certainly drive our rent-a-government to award said contracts to whoever has made the right donation into the right pocket. I'd be surprised to see it be anything other than a complete shambles too.

Anyway... I'm not convinced there may be any long term need for such cards or whatever form they take. The optimist in me sees once the majority are vaccinated, the virus [mutant deadly vaccine immune strain permitting] will hopefully fall to such numbers that it all becomes a moot point. There is, however, a load of cash to be made dispensing cards; and that will certainly drive our rent-a-government to award said contracts to whoever has made the right donation into the right pocket. I'd be surprised to see it be anything other than a complete shambles too.

I think it's getting a bit overheated if folk are worried their right to free speech is under threat and we're comparable to China because a comment was moderated.
The moderators want the forums to be friendly and welcoming to everyone. If the moderators think a comment is needlessly mean spirited, picks on a group of folk, doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion, is inaccurate and/or any other combination of reasons we feel contributes to the forums being un-friendly and un-welcoming, then the mods will do some mod-ding.
If we all keep the Guidelines in mind I'm sure we'll be fine.

But you're about to...
Let's get this straight then, Colin. Because someone is no spring chicken they should be able to drop in casual racist / sexist / whateverist comments and that's OK? And what, say, were a twentysomething to come along and do the same - would you put that down to the ignorance of youth and let it go? Throughout history folk have held opinions that were all sorts of messed up, allowed to go unchecked and look where it ended up.
And, as for "some of us are way to long in the tooth to accept the modern, mind controlling, PC perspective"... while that [the PC extreme perspective] does exist, are you saying folk aren't capable of being kind, considerate and respectful (even in their elder years)? I fear you're just offering out a rather rubbish justification for your own points of view.

Sure, Jan. Your comment was decidedly inflammatory and, at best, I'll considered. It did get you some attention and pootle off a number of folk - so mission accomplished.

Sure, Jan. Your comment was decidedly inflammatory and, at best, I'll considered. It did get you some attention and pootle off a number of folk - so mission accomplished.

Bit o an Islamophobic cheapshot dare Ghostrider, and ironic considering dat aabody is expected tae wear facemasks noo-a-days!

God bless the spacebar!

I am always amazed at the quality of rich scientific and medical knowledge shown by  the posters on this forum. I am totally dumbfounded you haven't been called on by the UN to sort out the world's problems.

So the Council is going to spend some money "upgrading" the Tesco roundabout.
As someone who regularly uses this particular roundabout not only driving, but occasionally on foot I fail to see any problems with it and cannot but be concerned about what difference any alterations will make.
Surely there are more needful places where this money would be better spent 

Thanks for that Davie. I can't say I'm surprised as I imagine rockets being on the loud side of things. I nearly had a trouser changing moment when the Typhoons buzzed Lerwick a few years ago... and I'd imagine rockets being even louder.

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/03/22/rspb-adds-to-concern-over-spaceports-potential-impact-on-birds/

I fear you're looking for a simple answer to a complex question - it depends on what is included in the calculations, and who you ask. Royalists will make the case that they're net contributors to the economy, anti-royalists generally consider them to be a net draw on taxpayers.
Each 'royal' has multiple incomes - almost like a mini economy of their own. Higher ranking royals are supported through a 'Sovereign Grant' (essentially tax payers money), most royals inherit extensive estates and earn taxes and rentals from their land, they have business interests that benefit from royal association, interest earned on their inherited wealth, incomes from the Crown Estate, multiple tax exemptions, loopholes, you name it.... the list is long, historical, and pretty much impossible to unpick in terms of how much it contributes to, or draws from, the economy. To remove the royal family from the picture is essentially a series of 'what if?' scenarios.

The money they bring in through tourism, which is often used by royalists as a justification for taxpayers to subsidise their existence, it nigh on impossible to estimate. As the Independent recently reported:
"we should treat even estimates of economic activity linked to the royals with a large dash of scepticism. The only way to reach these numbers is to estimate the counterfactual – what would have happened to UK tourism or trade if the Royal Family didn’t exist? Or if the official Royal Family was significantly smaller and less expensive to run?.... In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one."
Whether the Royal Family cost me £1, £10, £100 or £1000 a year.... I morally object to taxpayers money being used to support the lavish lifestyle of an already unfathomably wealthy family.

Is it joost me dat is seek o hearin aboot Prince Harry and his wife or girlfriend or whitivver? Is he even a Prince noo?
its hard tae hae ony sympathy we folk dat claim da media is ill wee dem and at da same time try tae get dir overprivileged faces aa ower da media. Surely if you want tae be left alone den goin on TV tae say you want tae be left alone is coonterproductive. If dey really wanted dir privacy dey’d move tae Skerries  
And does anybody hereaboots tink dat da Royal Family is an anachronism dat’s long ago hed its day?

Maybe try IslesCars'R'Wis.com? I'll fetch my coat. And let the door hit me on the way out.

^It does indeed. The Times blurted out a piece yesterday about how we'd qualify for Level 0 status were the newly tightened end of April rules applied right now. I'm not linking to it as it was an obviously stupid and irresponsible thing to publish IMHO; it'll only work to encourage some to take it as an excuse to make an early start. Level 0 may well be applicable by the end of April if nationwide cases continue to drop, the number of those vaccinated continues to rise and some sort of point of entry testing is in place... but that's not now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-56245100
Isle of Man was just about the 1st to end restrictions and open up, now they have a 'spike'.  Shows just how fragile things are, and that it only takes 1 person to bring it in..

The Booth is Scalloway is a lovely space https://www.waspsstudios.org.uk/spaces/artist-space/the-booth/ but is likely booked up, and the Shorestation in Unst looks to be booked too https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/884281
There are artist studio spaces in Bressay https://www.bressay.org/arts-crafts/studio-hire and I'm sure they'd be able to point you in the direction of affordable accommodation nearby.
Those are the only dedicated hireable studios I can think of, but I'm sure many other accommodation providers would be more than happy for you to paint.
As Colin says, you'd be lucky to get somewhere for a month in August for £500 but you might be lucky seeing as the tourist season probably won't be as busy as normal.

I'm corrected twaree folk, and da conversation usually goes alany da lines o
Sooth person: "...The Shetlands..."
Me (with an accent): "It's actually Shetland"
Sooth person: "Shiitland?!! The land of shiit?"
Me: "The Shetlands is fine"
--
Apologies tae da admin folk - I'm bypassed da swear filter because it wis ruining my  anecdote by correcting Shiitland to 'Turdland'. I'm fly, so I added an 'ii'  
 
** admin edit - given the dialect context, your 'ii Shiitland' is permissible! **

Aathing is heading in the right direction.. https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/02/23/first-minister-to-outline-steps-towards-easing-covid-restrictions/
So, how weel do you think Nicola Sturgeon is handling dis? I tink she's doin brawly weel